Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Biblical Kind

Nice! Nicely leveled up!

And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."

I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.

Thanks.

P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?

I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.

Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.

You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

You have never heard of DR.Spetner he is the one that single handedly destroyed Neo Darwinism.

Maybe you should read his book.

Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it. He essentially invented his own version of evolution.

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Tried to give you rep?

What the hell are you talking about?

Look at post #730.

Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?

It usually isn't a problem. It's only a problem here because we are discussing a subject about which you are both ignorant and dishonest.

You're funny

 

[Youwerecreated]

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Biblical Kind

I tried to give you reputation points but I have nobody else in the thread to give reputation points to and it say's I must spread it around. I guess I could give it to dragon for his one right answer that purebreds genepool gets smaller. by admitting that you breed out genetic information not in genetic information, he really can't see the problems that presents for evolutionists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Every creationist I have posted has a background in science,unless I overlooked someone please point them out.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it. He essentially invented his own version of evolution.

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

His whole stance is that information is only lost in mutations, which is a flat out lie.

By effect on function
Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).
Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes. Often called a neomorphic mutation.[/B
]Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.
Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to the death of the organisms which carry the mutations.
A back mutation or reversion is a point mutation that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.[31]

 

[Dr.Drock]

This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.

Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it. He essentially invented his own version of evolution.

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

His whole stance is that information is only lost in mutations, which is a flat out lie.

By effect on function
Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).
Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes. Often called a neomorphic mutation.[/B
]Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.
Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to the death of the organisms which carry the mutations.
A back mutation or reversion is a point mutation that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.[31]

You need to read more the kind of mutations Neo needs can't do what they say I can't help you don't understand what's being said.

 

[LOki]

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Biblical Kind

Nice! Nicely leveled up!

And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."

I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.

Thanks.

P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?

I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.

Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.

You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.

Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis

You are missing the point but here is a good explanation.

Darwinism and the Deterioration
of the Genome


Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
This article first appeared in Vol. 42, No. 2 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly,
a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.


Abstract
An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.

Introduction
he primary basis of macroevolution is presumably the occurrence of mutations, which are accidental changes in the DNA. This includes both DNA that codes for protein and that which has other roles in the cell. This changed DNA can result in an observable change in the phenotype (the physical appearance) of the organism. These mutations ultimately provide the differences that are selected for (or against) by natural selection (Mayr, 2001; Wise, 2002, p. 163). The critical importance of mutations in providing the raw material for evolution is widely acknowledged by Darwinists, and is almost universally mentioned in biology textbooks (Mayr, 2001). In the words of one of the founders of the modern neoDarwinian theory, and one of the most eminent evolutionists, Harvard professor Ernst Mayr: “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation” (Mayr, 1967, p. 50). The primary architect of neoDarwinism was Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote that “the process of mutation is the only source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution” (Dobzhansky, 1957, p. 385, emphasis mine). Dobzhansky concluded that “evolution is possible only because heredity is counteracted by another process opposite in effect—namely, mutation” (1951, p. 25, emphasis mine). The conclusion that mutations are the key to evolution is the basis of modern neoDarwinism (Mayr, 2001).

Other sources of variation, such as sexual reproduction, genetic crossing over, and transposition, primarily produce only rearrangements of existing information and do not create new genetic information. These other mechanisms of change yield phenotypic variations that will produce, at best, only a limited amount of microevolution. Therefore, the source of all genetic variety required for macroevolution ultimately is mutations.

One of the most commonly utilized illustrations to help understand the process macroevolution via mutations was developed by the leading evolutionary biologist and Oxford professor, Richard Dawkins (1986). His example requires random variations of all, or almost all, of the nucleotides for neoDarwinian evolution to occur. This paper examines whether or not this general requirement is fulfilled.

The Dawkins macroevolutionary model actually helps to show why mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. Most all expressed mutations yield proteins that have reduced function, such as illustrated by sickle cell anemia. Some mutations, like adrenoleukodystrophy, cause a complete loss of function (Lewis, 2003, p. 26). This result fits with Batten’s report that most mutations are harmful and

most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive... (Batten, 2002, p. 163).
Three kinds of mutations can be distinguished—beneficial, neutral, or deleterious (Mayr, 2001, p. 98). To be consistent, Mayr’s terminology will be used in this paper, which argues that the long term result of mutations is the degradation, deterioration, or degeneration of the genome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals

- Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome -- TrueOrigin Archive

 

[LOki]

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind"[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.

Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.

 

[LOki]

So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.

Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.

Just when I thought you had leveled up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nice! Nicely leveled up!

And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."

I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.

Thanks.

P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?

I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.

Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.

You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Yes breed is a term I prefer over the term sub-species. I don't like using terms that evolutionist create to build their theory off. A species can be a family or a breed and why would you call one breed a sub-species if it is a breed from the same family ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind"[/ame]

When you actually say something worth responding to I will respond to it,otherwise I will just ignore what you say.

Because really we are talking science you talk very little science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.

Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.

Just when I thought you had leveled up.

So someone is level when they say what you want to hear your true colors are obvious.

 

[Dragon]

So someone is level when they say what you want to hear your true colors are obvious.

No, someone is level when they exhibit honesty and intellectual integrity (although it's a lost cause to expect that from creationists).

For example, one is level when they don't present, in lieu of an argument, a wall of text that they themselves do not understand.

 

[Dr.Drock]

From your other link.

"An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information."

They keep repeating this lie even though it has been tested and proven that this is false.

Find me a Bible blogger who takes biology seriously, all the ones you've provided clearly don't.